I Hate to Agree with Kissinger, But....

So, I have an idea. Why don't we arm the Ukrainians with enough firepower to drive the fascist horde from their country?

So far we have given them somewhat less than 10 billion in aid(much less in actual arms). That aid cost our federal budget about 1.6 trillion dollars.

1.6 trillion dollars.

How about instead of paying off progressive thugs, we simply arm the ukrainians. The fact that we haven't manufactured 152 mm artillery shells for them is astounding, and frankly malpractice by the executive branch.

200,000 152mm laser guided rounds would finish the Russian that have invaded Ukraine off for good. If we had pulled our head out our ass, the would be showing up in Ukraine now. Clearly, President Biden enjoys the smell.

So, I have an idea. Why don't we arm the Ukrainians with enough firepower to drive the fascist horde from their country? Originally Posted by kehaar

Which fascists are you talking about Azov? Those are Ukrainians.

So far we have given them somewhat less than 10 billion in aid(much less in actual arms). That aid cost our federal budget about 1.6 trillion dollars. Originally Posted by kehaar

How about we give them nothing? I mean it's not our circus and they aren't our monkeys... why do WE NEED to do anything at fcuking all?

How about instead of paying off progressive thugs, we simply arm the ukrainians. The fact that we haven't manufactured 152 mm artillery shells for them is astounding, and frankly malpractice by the executive branch. Originally Posted by kehaar

Why would we manufacture artillery shells for a foreign nation? The other small problem is I 'm 99% sure that 152mm is NOT a standard NATO round... the US doesn't produce them at ALL... let alone for a foreign nation.

200,000 152mm laser guided rounds would finish the Russian that have invaded Ukraine off for good. If we had pulled our head out our ass, the would be showing up in Ukraine now. Clearly, President Biden enjoys the smell. Originally Posted by kehaar

Oh I don't disagree on the smell, but Ukraine is Europes business, not the US. Have we learned nothing in the last 20 years in Astan and Iraq?

....If we had pulled our head out our ass, the would be showing up in Ukraine now. Clearly, President Biden enjoys the smell. Originally Posted by kehaar

Maybe we shouldn't have put our head up our ass in the first place. That could be a thing.

Which fascists are you talking about Azov? Those are Ukrainians.

How about we give them nothing? I mean it's not our circus and they aren't our monkeys... why do WE NEED to do anything at fcuking all?

Why would we manufacture artillery shells for a foreign nation? The other small problem is I 'm 99% sure that 152mm is NOT a standard NATO round... the US doesn't produce them at ALL... let alone for a foreign nation.

Oh I don't disagree on the smell, but Ukraine is Europes business, not the US. Have we learned nothing in the last 20 years in Astan and Iraq? Originally Posted by texassapper

At the beginning of the war, there was a debate. The fundamental choices were:

1) Let the fascist thugs destroy Ukraine, its culture, its people, and its infrastructure.
2) Arm the Ukrainians.

The central Europeans, the Indians, and the Chinese chose (1).

The rest of the world chose (2).

Once we made that choice, the only option is to arm them sufficiently that the win quickly and decisively. Anything short of that level of support is criminal.

If you are truly an isolationist, and live that life, you could have the moral authority to choose path 1. I don't live that life.

Providing ammunition for their existing military equipment is, by far, the most effective way we can help Ukraine. Their transformation to NATO weaponery is a manipulation to enhance their probability of entering NATO.

I laugh a bit when someone claims we couldn't make ammunition for their artillery systems. If we have regressed to that level of stupidity, our society is fucked.

At the beginning of the war, there was a debate. The fundamental choices were:

1) Let the fascist thugs destroy Ukraine, its culture, its people, and its infrastructure.
2) Arm the Ukrainians.

The central Europeans, the Indians, and the Chinese chose (1).

The rest of the world chose (2).

Once we made that choice, the only option is to arm them sufficiently that the win quickly and decisively. Anything short of that level of support is criminal.

If you are truly an isolationist, and live that life, you could have the moral authority to choose path 1. I don't live that life.

Providing ammunition for their existing military equipment is, by far, the most effective way we can help Ukraine. Their transformation to NATO weaponery is a manipulation to enhance their probability of entering NATO.

I laugh a bit when someone claims we couldn't make ammunition for their artillery systems. If we have regressed to that level of stupidity, our society is fucked. Originally Posted by kehaar

russians are giving ukr the nato treatment like what was done to serbia. to be fair, Nato didn't try to destroy serbia's culture like the ruskies are doing.

Once we made that choice, the only option is to arm them sufficiently that the win quickly and decisively. Anything short of that level of support is criminal. Originally Posted by kehaar

Let me introduce you to Democrats... we made promises to Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghanis, and the Democrats reneged on them. Do you think it will be any different for Ukrainians? LOL

I laugh a bit when someone claims we couldn't make ammunition for their artillery systems. If we have regressed to that level of stupidity, our society is fucked. Originally Posted by kehaar

LOL... do you think the US possesses the tooling to mass produce 152mm shells? Because I don't think we do... and why would we be providing a Russian caliber round anyway? We've famously given them our 155mm tubes...

What no comment on the avowed Nazi AZov Battalions? they appear to be committing a large number of the atrocities in UKR. I've read of them gunning down surrendering UKR troops. Sounds like the SS produced some fine offspring there...

I'm 100% for arming them to the max...for one they have much better looking women than the Afgans, Iraqis and Vietnamese and they seem to treat them better.

Let me introduce you to Democrats... we made promises to Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghanis, and the Democrats reneged on them. Do you think it will be any different for Ukrainians? LOL
LOL... do you think the US possesses the tooling to mass produce 152mm shells? Because I don't think we do... and why would we be providing a Russian caliber round anyway? We've famously given them our 155mm tubes...

What no comment on the avowed Nazi AZov Battalions? they appear to be committing a large number of the atrocities in UKR. I've read of them gunning down surrendering UKR troops. Sounds like the SS produced some fine offspring there... Originally Posted by texassapper

Are you saying that, as a society, we are too stupid to modify a factory to make 152 mm shells? If you are right, we are well and truly fucked.

Ukrainians aren't Nazis. The Ukrainian society does not believe they have the right to impose their will outside their borders, and don't believe other folks are subhuman.

The people you are advertising for believe both of those things.

In Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, we delivered as much as we possibly could, both in American lives and treasure, to get them to stand on their own. Those societies wanted us to leave, and we left. The folks who lost the wars in those places are the folks that wanted us to leave. We should never hang our head in shame for what we were trying to do in any of those places.

I'd note that there was nothing to gain for the US in any of those places, except stability. Unlike Europeans, we don't rape, pillage, loot, and steal from the places that we intervene.

A further note is that we have a tremendous amount to gain from a stabil thriving Ukraine. Their citizens are smart, organized, capable, and motivated. That country is loaded with natural resources that will make that society wealthy if they are allowed to have peace. A thriving Ukraine that was a friend of the United States would greatly benefit us. Why do you think the Russians hate the Ukraine? That. Why do you think the Germans and the French hate Ukraine? that.

Are you saying that, as a society, we are too stupid to modify a factory to make 152 mm shells? If you are right, we are well and truly fucked. Originally Posted by kehaar

It could be done... but there's really no point.

Ukrainians aren't Nazis. The Ukrainian society does not believe they have the right to impose their will outside their borders, and don't believe other folks are subhuman. Originally Posted by kehaar

Well the UN Human Rights Commission disagrees with you.

The people you are advertising for believe both of those things. Originally Posted by kehaar

The people I advertise for? If you mean the Russians... No. I just don't care enough to support either. And neither should our government. We have no compelling interests in Ukraine. It wouldn't matter if the Donbas is Russian controlled or Ukraine controlled. macht nicht.

In Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, we delivered as much as we possibly could, both in American lives and treasure, to get them to stand on their own. Those societies wanted us to leave, and we left. The folks who lost the wars in those places are the folks that wanted us to leave. We should never hang our head in shame for what we were trying to do in any of those places. Originally Posted by kehaar

Or were we trying to impose our type of democracy on people that weren't interested in it? I don't think our forces were shameful but we made political promises that Democrats reneged on first chance they got. The same will happen to Ukrainians. They are just being used as a political expediency by the current US regime.

I'd note that there was nothing to gain for the US in any of those places, except stability. Unlike Europeans, we don't rape, pillage, loot, and steal from the places that we intervene. Originally Posted by kehaar

That's great... what's that got to do with whether we should be there in the first place.

A further note is that we have a tremendous amount to gain from a stabil thriving Ukraine. Their citizens are smart, organized, capable, and motivated. That country is loaded with natural resources that will make that society wealthy if they are allowed to have peace. A thriving Ukraine that was a friend of the United States would greatly benefit us. Why do you think the Russians hate the Ukraine? That. Why do you think the Germans and the French hate Ukraine? that. Originally Posted by kehaar

Ukraine can be stable under Russian rule too or if the nation is divided... it really doesn't matter in terms of US policy. I don't care about European feelings for each other... and neither does 90% of the US... most US citizens couldn't point out Ukraine on a map let alone tell us what benefits we derive from a free vs. Russian controlled Ukraine.

I guess it is a good place to do bio-weapons research apparently since it's outlawed on US soil.

I agree Ukraine can be stable. This is not the time to be sending them more money, prolonging the war while Russia controls the economic cards. Russia is killing Europe's energy supplies, as Biden cripples ours. This isn't the Beverly Hillbillies, where you can stick a shovel in your backyard and strike new oil.

...I'd note that there was nothing to gain for the US in any of those places, except stability.... Originally Posted by kehaar

You do recall, with clarity, that Obama said the exact same thing about Ukraine around 2014. Right? Which was about about the same time that Ukraine oligarch donors were pouring about $8M into the Clinton Foundation and the Sons of Ukraine were riding high and mighty. Right?

..This isn't the Beverly Hillbillies, where you can stick a shovel in your backyard and strike new oil. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Speaking of porking the EU, we turn the page over to: But Wait! There's More!

What’s at risk due to Russia’s nuclear power dominance?

by Matt Bowen and Paul Dabbar, opinion contributors - 06/12/22 2:00 PM ET
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

The impacts Western-allied countries are facing due to Moscow’s sway over global oil and natural gas markets are real and well understood by now, even if solutions remain difficult. But those nations also face another level of energy risk that has received less attention as the war in Ukraine drags on: Russia’s considerable share of the global nuclear power market.

Western leaders need to immediately consider their exposure to Russian nuclear exports and take steps to reduce it or face another energy shock at the hands of Putin.

There are several segments of the commercial nuclear value chain where a Russian supplier could impact the availability of a reactor in the West to provide power. For nuclear fuel, these include uranium mining and milling, conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication. For existing Russian-designed reactors, they include providing unique original equipment manufacturer spare parts and services.

Russia has a significant market share in many of those pieces of the nuclear supply chain through its state-owned nuclear company Rosatom. For that reason, various countries around the world are caught in a challenging situation, including the U.S. They may want to extricate themselves from buying nuclear energy supplies from Rosatom to reduce supply chain risk and to stop sending money to Russia, but at the same time, they currently rely on Russian services and materials to run their reactors.

As we laid out in a paper last month from the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, various U.S. allied countries have Russian reactors in operation or under construction, including Finland, the Czech Republic, Turkey and Ukraine. Those countries are at risk of their Russian-built reactors having operational difficulties or even outages without materials, equipment and services to maintain them. However, various Western manufacturing companies can over time start producing replacements to overcome that supply challenge.

The more critical issue is the uranium fuel supply chain. Since Russia only mines 6 percent of the world’s uranium, it is relatively easy for countries and nuclear power plant owners to secure other global sources of uranium ore. However, Russia controls 40 percent of the global uranium conversion market, where uranium oxide “yellow cake” is converted into uranium hexafluoride — a gaseous form needed for the enrichment process. Natural uranium has a Uranium-235 isotope content of 0.7 percent, and the enrichment process increases the U-235 content to the 3-5 percent needed to run nuclear reactors. And Russia holds 46 percent of uranium enrichment capacity. The vast majority of the 439 reactors around the world require enriched uranium fuel, including all reactors in the U.S. fleet. And while each reactor has varying levels of dependency on Russian enrichment services, in total it is a material exposure.

The stark reality is that if Russia stopped delivery of enriched uranium to U.S. power companies, the U.S. could see impacts on reactor operation possibly this year or next. That could lead to reactor outages, and given nuclear power is over 20 percent of the generation capacity in areas of the country, electricity prices would jump even further than today’s electricity price inflation. There may not be even enough power in those regions to cover demand. Furthermore, if there was any question that Russia might use its energy exports for political purposes, it was made clear this last month when it stopped natural gas deliveries to Poland, Bulgaria and Finland...

Now that's what I call a proper booty poking.

You do recall, with clarity, that Obama said the exact same thing about Ukraine around 2014. Right? Which was about about the same time that Ukraine oligarch donors were pouring about $8M into the Clinton Foundation and the Sons of Ukraine were riding high and mighty. Right? Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I'm sure that was just a coincidence...

Russia is killing Europe's energy supplies, as Biden cripples ours. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Why are you complaining... you voted for the current situation...

Better?

Why are you complaining... you voted for the current situation...

Better? Originally Posted by texassapper

The difference between you and I is that I vote for someone based on the totality of what he delivers, and after a compare/contrast with his opponent. I am not complaining, you still don't understand that word. You vote for an Orange Turd who attempted to remain in power via criminal exercize. You suck his Cock, figuratively speaking, every day on this Site.

I say it when Biden is wrong, you swallow Trump semen.